Skip to main content

{{{Reposting this from my blog

Written and published one day before a Suffolk Superior Court judge lifted the restraining order and two days after Mayor Menino gave Occupy protesters a midnight deadline to vacate camp. The specifics may have altered, but the overarching issues remain.}}}

December 6, 2011

Dear friends and partners in Occupy Boston:

Today marks the ten-week point since several hundred of us in Greater Boston, inspired by protests around the world and spurred into action by the police brutality in New York City, first met under the cloak of darkness at the Boston Common bandstand. That night Occupy Boston (OB) was born.

Since then we've seen our local branch of the global movement grow from an indignant cluster of strangers to what it is today: aninternationally recognized protest stubbornly resisting authority. Our tide has ebbed and flowed with both significant accomplishments and embarrassing mistakes, but through it all we've remained steadfast, strong and obstinate-like any good protest movement must.

To say we are a good protest movement, however, does nothing to deflect the great problems and uncertainties we face today. We obviously live with the uncertainty of not knowing what will happen to the Dewey Square encampment after December 15, but I think we have more important issues--ones that will mean the ultimate life or death of this entire movement--to address as a human community. I wish to address them below.


It is important to remember that, despite the Facebook page uniting us all being named Occupy Boston, literally occupying a public space in Boston was not a given for the group that first assembled. In fact, the first questions we had to answer were "Do we occupy? If so, where and when?" The scope was meant to be larger than just a literal physical occupation, similar to the Occupy Wall Street movement that already had dramatic actions, well-oiled General Assemblies (GA) and a sophisticated media operation. Occupation was seen as a tactic, not the movement itself.

In Boston and other cities around the country the occupations have become the overwhelming focus of the movement while other aspects have suffered. We seem to be circling the wagons in a conservative effort to protect camp from eviction at the expense of dynamic ideas from groups like direct action, facilitation, media, and outreach. In doing that we are in danger of turning a protest against global injustice and brutality into a grandstand for the First Amendment.

Physical, mental, emotional, and financial resources need to be redistributed and decentralized from the literal occupation. We desperately need energy and radicalization in our movement, which will be provided if and when other ideas receive the attention and resources they deserve.


I heard a prescient statement on the night of Indigenous Peoples Day (aka Columbus Day). The protestors had made their way back from the various marches held that day and at least half of us were gathered on the Greenway parcel adjacent to Dewey Square. We were all preparing for the impending police raid when a woman whose name I forget addressed the crowd at the emergency GA. She said, "Getting arrested does not make you a better protestor. It does not make you better than the people who cannot risk arrest."

We should hold the spirit of that statement as one of our movement's guiding principles. Each person in our movement has their own unique mix of life experiences, political opinions, physical abilities, familial and job responsibilities, citizen status, and criminal record. Some people's lives afford them the opportunities to risk arrest, sleep at Dewey Square, and/or spend every day attending camp meetings while some do not. Likewise, some people can spend hours a day in email correspondence with fellow protestors while some cannot. The important thing to remember is that each productive member of our group brings something valuable to the movement. The strength of our collective is that, through cooperation, our diversity can conquer individual deficiencies and our movement can flourish.

From my perspective some petty human traits like intolerance and egomania are flourishing in the three main factions of OB: those on-site with limited access to email, those off-site with limited access to camp, and those with limited access to both venues. When people separate themselves like this they create sanctuaries for cliques, dominators, enablers, and other assholes who want to be leader of the pack. They dig into their turf and fight like dogs; if new people enter that territory they better watch out.

Nobody in this movement is King or Queen of any domain. Dewey Square is not the Mecca of the Occupation Movement in Boston. Those with more internet access or more highly developed writing styles are neither smarter nor more sophisticated than anybody else. We must understand how necessary we are to each other if we are going to succeed, for as one of our favorite chants goes, "The People, United, will never be defeated!"


Prejudice in myriad forms is a very real problem in OB, so much so that I've wondered how the hell Dewey Square could be my intentional community. Most often that prejudice is directed at women, people of color, houseless people or members of other historically marginalized groups. This should obviously be unacceptable to everybody. What are also unacceptable to me are the measures we are taking to address these prejudices, particularly the interest in applying academic race theories to every single human interaction and to applaud token displays of solidarity (for the record: I support much of the body of work in critical race theory but feel that many of its real-life implementations are self-defeating).

Two weeks ago these practices led to a discomforting display at the GA. People of color and their white allies lined up on separate sides of the stage and the white people delivered a message on behalf of the people of color. Thus we had the races segregated and the whites speaking for blacks, just like in 1955 America except the whites were being patronized, too. This strange phenomenon of well-intentioned prejudice trying to combat malevolent prejudice harms everybody. The original prejudice marginalizes the usual people and degrades humanity. The reactionary prejudice reinforces the divide without solving the problem. The two together create a theoretical, ineffectual groupthink that allows for a person to be treated as a dominator regardless of their actual character.

I come to this opinion through my experience as a straight white man whose struggles and beliefs don't match the assumptions people make of him. I grew up in an inner-city neighborhood littered with trash, dotted with drug houses, and plagued by violence. As kids we sat thirty-five to a classroom in rundown schools and were eligible for free school lunch. My family had little experience preparing kids for college and my high school was struggling too much to give me the attention I'd get in a wealthy suburb. I went to college but quickly dropped out due to frustration and poverty.

I've learned some things from this life. One is that some people will never look past my looks to consider me for my struggles. Another is that billions of people have not been afforded the same opportunity to overcome their struggles, simply because they were not straight white American men like me. This is an awful dichotomy, but somewhere in the middle of it is a space for human reflection, love and understanding. From this space we can improve ourselves and help others fight. We can cooperate as strong individuals to meet hate with even more ferocious love.

Instead of responding to acts of prejudice in pre-ordained group discussions, we should dedicate ourselves to self-cleansing and the defense of other human beings. Make a pledge to work on projects with people not from your racial, ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds. Make another pledge to stand up for a victim of prejudice at the moment you witness it. We must first be the change we wish to see if we're ever going to manifest it in society.

Listen to a Stevie Wonder song or a Cornel West speech if you don't know what I mean.


About a month ago a veteran activist named Sarah Robinson wrote a viral blog post titled Occupy’s Asshole Problem: Flashbacks from An Old Hippie. Like that dry freezing air that first hits your enflamed nostrils on January mornings, Robinson’s explication of Occupy’s interpersonal problems and how to fix them was an uncomfortable but invigorating wake-up. OB beat writer/blogger Chris Faraone went as far as to use it as a springboard for some of his own Boston-centric analysis in his post, Occupy Boston's Idle Douchebag Safety Issue.

Their general analysis as it applies to OB is that a pattern has developed: most people have sacrificed some of their personal freedom to make an honorable attempt to reassert the common good. A small crew of “assholes” and “douchebags” has undermined that attempt with acts of substance abuse and violence. One group in the movement is working tirelessly to enforce accepted standards of behavior with little support and a shoe-string budget. Another group in the movement doesn't think we're allowed to be intolerant to the people perpetrating those acts. Gridlock is created, chaos remains, and the movement spins its wheels.

This issue is complicated by the fact that many of the alleged perpetrators are houseless, mentally ill, active addicts, or some combination thereof; they are at the bottom of the American Caste System left to fend for themselves. Most of us in the movement are infuriated by our government’s thirty-year dismantling of the social safety net and believe that these are exactly the people who need the tenderest loving care. It is grossly irresponsible, however, to assume that a ragtag group of amateur protestors with a profound lack of training in healthcare and social work can meet these needs. The occupiers with these serious problems cannot be properly helped by the rest of the group and they cannot meet the behavioral standards of the community. We enable their destructive behavior and they disable our protest efforts.

Despite the repeated criticism that we stand for nothing, everybody in OB knows that we have common values that bind us together. These values and their corresponding behaviors must be codified, disseminated, upheld, and defended at all times by all of us. This will definitely require a lot of help from allies in social work to do it humanely and a little help from law enforcement to do it effectively. Regardless of the astoundingly negative opinions some of us have of police officers, cooperating with them on this issue is absolutely necessary if we're going to improve safety in the camp.


Think of this theoretical newspaper headline: “Motley crew of malcontents solve sum of society’s ills with tents and tarps.”

As silly as that sounds, that seems to be where much of our rhetoric is aimed. We want to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, heal the sick, nurture the soul, educate the masses, protect victims of predation, create our own media apparatus, build a new model of decision-making and somehow police this entire intentional society from within…with paltry resources against one of the largest and most repressive world governments in human history. Is that really what we all signed up for?

Occupy, as I understand it, is a protest movement that challenges the stranglehold multi-national corporations have on government, finance, the economy, and the media. The premise is that small clusters of people spread across the world can take on an inherently unjust and evil system, fighting to prioritize human need over human greed. It is not intended to be an exercise in utopian microcosms.

This movement against Wall Street—a term that should be synonymous with Global Predators—is the most significant protest the United States has seen in at least thirty years. We know the people who are responsible for the suffering and we want to see their destructive reign come to an end. We’re not going to get them or get there by sweating the details of a 21st Century commune. Instead we should be looking to make each individual occupation cell as large as possible and make them thoroughly interconnected. For Boston this means transforming how we reach out to the rest of the region, including the other occupations that have sprung up (e.g. Ocupemos el Barrio, Occupy the Hood). If we want the masses to participate with us we cannot expect them to come to us and fall in line. We need to go to where they are and share the power.

* * *

For those who feel that this letter is exceedingly negative, let me state emphatically that I believe we are capable of resolving all of these problems. We have proven our capabilities with what we have accomplished and dedicated people are already working on all of these suggestions. I just want to call these problems and solutions to the attention of the entire community because they are not currently being treated with the seriousness they deserve.

I hope that this letter can change that. I hope that we can have new discussions that can expand our discourse and further our movement, so together we can contribute our best to the global revolution against inhumanity.

In Solidarity,

Mike Mellor


Originally posted to Birdy Joe Hoaks on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 08:28 AM PST.

Also republished by Occupy Wall Street and Progressive Hippie.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Amazingly astute critique! (4+ / 0-)

    I think it boils down to people confusing a tactic with an end or goal.

    "Occupying" any place, especially Wall St, was a symbolic act.  But it's not the struggle.

    Focusing too much attention on maintaining the physical occupation detracts from the idea that the occupation of the physical space is a metaphor, not the goal of the movement, yet it's becoming the central goal -- just maintaining the physical occupation.

    In Romance languages, the word for a demonstration is often a version of "manifestation."  Occupations are supposed to be demonstrations or manifestations of some other larger movement -- they are temporary manifestations of an entire organizational structure that is in the world doing stuff.

    We've learned all the wrong lessons from the 60s -- we think that the demonstration is the point, when it's just a temporary blip that says, here is a manifestation of this much larger more institutionalized thing going on.

  •  With the court decision in Boston (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    UnaSpenser, HamdenRice, Phoenix Woman

    it becomes increasingly apparent that state and federal courts are strongly inclined to follow existing case law which supports local law regulating access to public space as being in compliance with first amendment rights. Changing this interpretation of the constitution would be an uphill battle. It seems time to ask what is at stake with this issue.

    The best historical analogy to this controversy is the sit ins at lunch counters and on buses of the civil rights movement. There was an immediate practical implication to those protests. It was to give racial minorities full access to those places and services in their daily lives. If somehow the constitutional interpretation were changed to recognize camping in public spaces as a right protected under the first amendment, what would be the practical result? I have difficulty grasping that.

    •  I think the Constitutional question is whether (3+ / 0-)

      authorities have the right to limit the freedom of assembly.

      Avenues of public discourse have become privatized and mediated by corporate interests.

      The grievances we need to redress to our government are profound and so, the need for a profound, prolonged assembly is called for.

      without holding the space, the powers that be will make sure that it gets used for other purposes. They will do anything they can to thwart our ability to persist and create a stable venue for public discourse and protest.

      I agree with the author that using the site as some kind of examplar society is not practical. But, using it as a site for persistent protest seems right.

      As the UN Envoy for Freedom of Speech is writing to the Obama administration, human and civil rights should always trump ordinances. We have extraordinary circumstances in our economy and political corruption. This calls for extraordinary measure of protest and redress.

      Just my humble opinion, of course, as the courts have not seen fit to acknowledge this. But then, our Constitution was never written to actual a true democracy for all and our laws have been crafted to serve the owner class. So, I don't really have great expectation of our court system.

      Please remember to Witness Revolution. It means so much to them that we pay attention.

      by UnaSpenser on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 09:39:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Precisely the reason (3+ / 0-)

        I will be down at Dewey Sq. tonight. Regardless of my criticisms the camp is the symbol of the Occupy Boston Movement and I have to bear witness, at the very least.

      •  What seems to be at legal issue (0+ / 0-)

        is physical space. The local governments are saying that Occupy Groups are free to hold rallies and assemblies on public space. The reserve the power to set limits on the time and duration of such assemblies. The courts are holding that they are satisfying to right to public assembly and political speech.

        First amendment issues usually take on debates about absolutism of free speech vs free speech balanced against other competing public interest. People can choose how much of their energies they want to invest in absolutist battles for abstract principles. I think that most people are likely to make such choices based on a perception of practical gains likely to be achieved.

        •  There are several issues where I am (0+ / 0-)

          inclined to place other considerations above absolutist first amendment claims. These include hate crimes, bullying, speech that is blatantly and abusively racists, sexist or homophobuc. I am more of a communitarian than a libertarian.

          •  the immediate need to hold space which is not (0+ / 0-)

            under the oppressive control of the 1% is not about absolutism. It is about the pragmatic reality that all other venues of dialog and planning get co-opted. That we need to have a space of our own. Visible, stable and accessible to all.

            Please remember to Witness Revolution. It means so much to them that we pay attention.

            by UnaSpenser on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 10:42:56 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I doubt that you are going to find a (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              court that views the constitution guaranteeing you that. I doubt that you would find much public support for amending the constitution to provide you with such a guarantee.  

              You currently do enjoy the right of such access to public space at certain times of the day. You could go to a public park and hold a general assembly every afternoon a 2 PM. Demanding that you have total control over the space 24/7 does begin to verge on absolutism.

              •  I realize I hold a minority view. We've all been (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                trained to believe that the laws we have and the way we enforce them are democracy, when they are not.

                Again, I don't hear anyone calling the Egyptians in Tahrir or the encamped Yemeni "absolutists". Nor are we yammering away over about how problematic it is that they took over space or are not following codes.

                We've taken over a tiny spec of space. A space that was practically unused before. The Greenway has been vastly underused and most in Boston hadn't even heard of Dewey Square before. So, it's hysterical that there's this outrage that we're using a part of it.

                Here's a sense of how much we're depriving the public of access to open space which they don't use:


                Please remember to Witness Revolution. It means so much to them that we pay attention.

                by UnaSpenser on Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 11:59:54 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  Exactly! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      UnaSpenser, Richard Lyon

      The physical tactic must be intimately related to the actual policy goal and have immediate benefits -- so lunch counter sit ins enabled people to use public facilities, and Gandhis attempt to sit in at salt works relieved a huge tax and nutritional burden from the Indian poor.

      If OWS were able to use the park the way they want -- and legally that seems very unlikely --  how does that change economic inequality, which is what they say the ultimate struggle is about?

      •  the struggle is about corporate control of every (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        aspect of our public lives. Everything from public space to public policy to public debate has been taken over by corporate interests. We have nowhere to turn for mass assembly without it being controlled by corporate interests.

        Our laws have been crafted to support the owner class and therefore, they have eroded our right to assembly to suit them.

        To see how public discourse is so twisted, just look at the Republican debates and how things regarding OWS are reported.

        We need forums where we can talk about the issues we have. We need to do this in person and not online. It is very powerful to meet in person and find ways to sort through decisions and issues.

        Yes, we can assemble daily. But, we know that if we leave a space, they will make sure it is used for other things. We know that without housing people to make sure that there is a constant presence, it will lose it's vitality.

        This is exactly what the powers that be want: for the movement to lose it's public presence and vitality.

        This is not just about first amendment purity, it's about having the time and space to gather meaningfully. The whole idea that citizens can hostilely take over their own public space is absurd. We didn't invade and shut down the entire city of Boston. We decided that it was in the public interest to use a spec of the public space available for a public purpose. That it is being framed as anything hostile is not only offensive, it highlights the perspective of the powers that be.

        When money is out of campaigns, when financial fraud is prosecuted, when people are allowed to keep their homes, when we stop funding wars, when we stop militarizing our police, when we stop oppressing entire classes of people with our prison industrial complex, when we actually reform our health care system, when we limit how much media any person or group can own, when we establish journalistic standards which must be met to qualify as news, and on and on and on, then we can afford to not hold a public space where the 99% can hold discourse and persistently protest is out of the oppressive hands of the 1%.

        Please remember to Witness Revolution. It means so much to them that we pay attention.

        by UnaSpenser on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 10:41:37 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I was having a similar conversation (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Phoenix Woman

          this morning with a man in his 70s who is a former newspaper reporter. I was reporting back to him about the impending raid and expressing my desire for some lofty civil disobedience actions. Our conversation went something like this:

          Me: We need highly visible actions that are obviously and directly related to our values and our grievances.

          Him: Why can't you, instead of insisting on that squalid camp in the middle of everything, have a nice big protest in someplace big like the Common or Franklin Park?

          Me: Because you can't see most of the Common from any of the adjoining streets and Franklin Park is in what a lot of people consider a no-man's-land .

          Him: Hell, the media could bring their helicopters and  video you!

          Exactly the point! They could, or they could not.  They could do just about anything they wanted in terms of the amount, the spin and the accuracy of reporting. That is one of our primary grievances and exactly why we should not participate by their rules.

  •  Brilliant commentary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Birdy Joe Hoaks, HamdenRice

    hope this gets Community Spotlighted :)

    R.I.P. Troy Anthony Davis
    October 9, 1968 - September 21, 2011

    by SwedishJewfish on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 09:30:50 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site